Oh my god, I nearly killed a man this morning ?

B

BBH

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 April 2007
Messages
9,357
Visit site
I live on a busy rural ( 40mph) road that is a rat run in the morning and evening and is I consider very dangerous. This road is used by absolutely everyone and everything from horses to cyclists and huge haulage lorries It is very twisty and hilly and not wide enough for two large things to pass at once.

The problem is the as the road is not wide and there are no pavements or road markings at the side, I came around a tight bend to find a pedestrian on the blind corner coming straight at me. I had to swerve to miss him and it really shook me up.

I spoke to my neighbour about this and apparently the council reduced it from a 60mph to a 40 mph a couple of years ago but they won't put it down to 30 mph as this constitutes a residential area giving people licence to build more houses ???Is there anything that can be done before someone really does get killed.
 
I am sorry you had such a terrifying experience this morning, particularly as you obviously are aware of how dangerous the road is, and take your safe driving seriously.

I do feel very strongly - and this is most definitely NOT aimed at you - but there are some people who think that whatever the speed limit says, that is how fast they should drive. There are many country roads where the limit is 40mph or even 30mph like my area, but there is no way anyone should be doing those speeds round some of the blind bends, especially where I live as there are wild animals on the road.

I hope your posts makes some drivers think again, and even some pedestrians need to take more care!

I was surprised about the 30mph limit and residential licence issue - I had no idea!!!
shocked.gif


Hope you can put this incident behind you, it can leave you so shaken up.
shocked.gif
 
How fast were you driving?

I always drive along rural roads with the expectation that I will meet something comming the other way.
 
[ QUOTE ]
i

I was surprised about the 30mph limit and residential licence issue - I had no idea!!!
shocked.gif




[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is actually the case. Local councils have a ten year plan which identifies areas for building for various purposes.
OP It is more likely that your particular council refuses to lower the speed limit to 30mph because itis not a designated residential area. You could lobby them to lower the speed limit. They might take notice if enough people join you ,or of course if there is a serious accident on that stretch, (sounds like its an accident waiting to happen).
Hope you get over the shock soon, it really can leave you feeling very shaky.
 
Yes but thats the point in a way you are keeping up with the flow of traffic that is 40 mph. This man was an idiot walking into traffic around blind bends with no pavement and the fact that the road is so narrow means traffic is ' hugging' the width of what road is there.

I suppose I didn't want a debate about the whys and wherefores of driving slowly and who's to blame because that discussion could be said about any road accident but more what action can be taken to persuade the council that something needs to be done for everyone's safety.
 
But as you say, there are no pavements. How else is he supposed to walk along the road?

Was he wearing something bright.

Luckily you are a safety concious driver and were able to avoid him.

As said above the speed limit is not a target - you can go slower.
 
To be honest i think there are thousands of roads like this across the country, and they are dangerous places. But i think money should be spent on showing people that if a country road is a 40 you don't have to do 40, it's the the very fastest you should be going on the straight and in good conditions.

The OH works in transport and one of his drivers flipped their lorry today doing a legal speed on a national speed limit road. Obviously going too fast even though he was within the limit.

It's just common sense really. I doubt the council will make it any lower than a 40, because for everyone who campaigns for it to be lowered, people will campaign for it not to be.
 
I live on a similar rural road, also used as a rat run, unfortunately it is not restricted to 40 mph. The nearby A road is 40, traffic then turns on to our road and it is 60mph
frown.gif
I have to walk along this road, and of course ride, again no pavements and not even a decent grass verge you can walk on. I just have to hope traffic slows down enough to give them time to avoid me when walking round a very bad bend, but I hve had to dive for cover a few times. Not criticising your driving OP just saying it is a fact of life I'm afraid that pedestrians have to use roads like this, and you are doing well that you have yours reduced to a 40 mph limit. Not sure what else you thought this chap could do to walk safely.
 
I don't know why you think the council should do something in this case? As the driver you should drive to the road conditions and expect there to be a hazard - so if it's a blind bend go slowly - what if someone had broken down round that corner? Sounds like you would have rear-ended them. It isn't the council's responsibility to ensure all car drivers can merrily swan about not needing to think 'what if'.

I really do think it's time people took responsibility for themselves and their actions - you are capable of driving more slowly round a blind bend, presumably this chap did not have any alternative route to walk along...and the very fact you say you know anything and everything uses it suggests that you probably need to drive along it more slowly - after all, it's not like you are unaware of the potential hazards.

I'm not trying to have a go - we all have moments where we realise we weren't driving appropriately - sounds like this was your wake up call and rather than trying to get someone else to take responsibility, maybe you should see it for what it was (and thank your lucky stars the outcome was as good as it was)?
 
Yes but on that basis why campaign about anything to do with unsafe roads, if all passing traffic had to slow to 5mph on any road without a 100m clear vision we'd have gridlock.

The council deemed it unsafe enough to reduce it from 60 to 40 so why not go further and reduce it to 30. I know I am far more wary in a 30mph because it clearly illustrates to me there are hazzards likely.

Also in the interests of personal responsibility it would also help if this man had some bright hi viz stuff on and not a dark raincoat. He maybe legally in the right and may have no other way of getting from a - b but even so he was stupid. I wouldn't put myself in danger in such a way. And no I wasn't speeding recklessly as I'm strictly legally allowed to travel up to 40 mph. Even if I was doing 20mph it doesn't give me enough stopping distance not to hit him.
 
While I totally agree with you about the man wearing Hi Viz, I don't think you can say that you are legally allowed to travel up to 40mph. It means you can't legally go above that, but the actual speed that you do should be governed by road conditions, not by the maximum speed allowed. People can still be prosecuted for dangerous driving when they are within the speed limit.

That said, you obviously had a very scary experience and I hope you are ok. I'm sure everyone has had a near miss at some time of another when driving, and if nothing else at least it reminds us to be more careful in future.
 
Whilst I agree it is sensible to wear high viz when walking/riding, in this instance if he was round a blind bend high viz wouldn't have made a difference would it?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I am far more wary in a 30mph because it clearly illustrates to me there are hazzards likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think most of us would agree that there is no correlation between a speed limit and potential hazards (in a lot of cases). And if people drove the road instead of the speed limit there would be far fewer accidents on our roads.

Most of the country roads round me have a national speedlimit. However, it's virtually impossible to drive to that upper limit because of the design of most of them; narrow, bendy etc. And for the sake of responsible motoring, why would you want to drive to that upper limit anyway.

However, it doesn't matter how slowly you are going, there may still be the need to take avoiding action if you come upon a hazzard. But the success of that manoeuvre does depend on the speed you are driving in many cases.

By your reaction to what happened this morning, you were going too fast. However, we've all been there. And it serves to remind us that we all need to take care when driving, especially familiar routes where we may become more complacent.
 
Yes but who deems whats safe and whats not, the cars in front were doing the same speed and they did nothing to indicate there was someone there and I was behind doing the same speed so how is it deemed safe for others to be doing a certain speed and not me even though the conditions were exactly the same. Would it be just my bad luck to hit this person when the other drivers didn't even take avoiding action and there by the grace of god didn't hit the guy.

Whatever the whys and wherefores I still think the authorities have a part to play in keeping citizens safe and reduce the likelihood of accidents.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yes but who deems whats safe and whats not, the cars in front were doing the same speed and they did nothing to indicate there was someone there

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the old lemmings defence
grin.gif


You, as a responsible driver, deem what is safe - you don't rely on the person in front of you
tongue.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yes but who deems whats safe and whats not, the cars in front were doing the same speed and they did nothing to indicate there was someone there and I was behind doing the same speed so how is it deemed safe for others to be doing a certain speed and not me even though the conditions were exactly the same. Would it be just my bad luck to hit this person when the other drivers didn't even take avoiding action and there by the grace of god didn't hit the guy.

Whatever the whys and wherefores I still think the authorities have a part to play in keeping citizens safe and reduce the likelihood of accidents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you do surely - you're the one driving the car and should be making your own judgements on what is a safe speed to drive at. You don't have to go at the same speed as the car in front.
I suppose you could say it would've been bad luck if you'd been the one to hit this man when everyone was going at the same speed. It would have been even worse luck for him though!
 
Oh come on, of course you use the car in front as an indication of whats ahead, are you telling me if the car ahead brakes you don't follow suit. I'm not saying for one minute people don't make their own decisions but I also do take a lead as to whats happening ahead from other traffic.

If the cars ahead swerve you naturally know to slow but my point is it seems I was the only one to see him at all and the others were just very lucky they didn't hit him.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Oh come on, of course you use the car in front as an indication of whats ahead, are you telling me if the car ahead brakes you don't follow suit

[/ QUOTE ]

You are absolutely right. You do watch traffic ahead, that is an entirely fair point.

But the fact remains that you don't rely on them to temper your own driving and responsibility.
 
You could reduce it to 10mph, there will still be numpties who think that they have the driving skills of a demi-God. The road I live on is 30mph, but that doesn't stop people driving through the village at 80mph (don't take my word for it, it was recorded by the Speedwatch). Most common speed is about 50mph. I can't walk out of my front gate without risking my life, literally, as there is no pavement after the gate.

I remember my driving instructor saying that the Speed Limit is a Maximum, not a compulsory part of driving. He also said of country lanes, 'Drive as fast as you can see'. Makes sense when you think about it. I do come across a few invisible people who think they're invincible, though. Normally with black dogs!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Oh come on, of course you use the car in front as an indication of whats ahead, are you telling me if the car ahead brakes you don't follow suit. I'm not saying for one minute people don't make their own decisions but I also do take a lead as to whats happening ahead from other traffic.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course people watch the car in front. But I think the point is that if you believe 30mph is a safe speed to drive at on this road, then you can make the choice to drive at 30mph. You don't have to go faster just because the car in front does.
 
I have to walk on a rural road with bends and no footpath, it scares the living daylights out of me, and when I had to walk my daughter to preschool, I used to do so in a state of prayer.

It should be obvious to the driver, assuming one is not in some far flung region, that potentially, someone might be walking towards them, and they should drive accordingly. I think driver education is what's needed, and a change of viewpoint from the prevailing 'the car is king' one to 'the roads are for everybody'.

That being said, I think parish councils should be allowed to turn avoidable rat runs into toll roads.
 
In my defense this is the only pedestrian I have ever seen on this stretch of road probably because it is fool hardy to attempt to walk it. There has to be an element of contributory negligence surely if someone choses to walk somewhere dangerous.

The road is a funny mixture of really tight road widths and no pavement in parts to some pavement that doesn't go anywhere. The trouble is the pavements are on the straight visible runs and where you need it on the bends there is none. Its all been put in in the least dangerous stretch of road and none where you want pedestrians off the road ie the blind bends and corners.
 
A road is a public highway, dangerous or not, with the exception of motorways, pedestrians are allowed to walk along them. Not everyone has the luxury of a car. Just a quick example, the bus into our nearest big town used to pick up at the end of our road, on the A road. The powers that be have now decided the bus will not stop here, the next available pick up point is mile away, along a very busy A road with not a pavement to be seen.
 
[ QUOTE ]
In my defense this is the only pedestrian I have ever seen on this stretch of road probably because it is fool hardy to attempt to walk it. There has to be an element of contributory negligence surely if someone choses to walk somewhere dangerous.

The road is a funny mixture of really tight road widths and no pavement in parts to some pavement that doesn't go anywhere. The trouble is the pavements are on the straight visible runs and where you need it on the bends there is none. Its all been put in in the least dangerous stretch of road and none where you want pedestrians off the road ie the blind bends and corners.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe you can say it is negligent to walk along a road because car drivers can't slow down!
As I said, I used to have to walk (trans: did not have a car, no bus available) from the farm cottage we lived in to the village for school/preschool/shop/church..... it was very very scary as drivers came steaming round bends (and 40mph is steaming when you are clutching a toddler's hand and trying to climb into a hedge)
 
I would have thought a car or accessible transport a necessity in a rural isolated community, and in your situation I would ask the bus company to reconsider. There must be other people who don't want to have to negotiate a busy road with small children etc

I think whats a shame is that it almost takes for accidents before the authorities do anything.
 
You see to me thats just doesn't make any sense, why on earth take toddlers on roads you know to be dangerous. Change your circumstances.

You have already said you know that drivers steam around the roads so you know the situation is dangerous yet you still chose to use the roads.
 
Fraid I don't agree, it was only half a mile, and I'm happy to walk, the children benefit from walking and at a guess 80% of the traffic should have been going via the A road which would have taken them all of about two minutes longer, or five minutes had they driven sensibly on the lane.

If the lane is as you describe then it is incumbent on each individual driver to drive intelligently and slowly enough to deal with anything that might come up on that road.

I would also like flaming sat navs which take people the 'quickest' way to be altered in some way, so that they do not recommend these routes just because they are 25m shorter if taken at full tilt.

I'm not sure why rural people should be expected to get a car or risk being run over :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top